The future of nuclear power takes another hit

In 2009, multinational financial services corporation Citigroup called nuclear power – with its skyrocketing costs, disastrous economics and dependence on public bailouts – a “corporate killer”. Now, in 2011, are we witnessing the slow death of one of the world’s largest nuclear companies?

You see, AREVA’s nuclear arm just isn’t really very good at what it does. It’s currently building – not very successfully - four of its much-hyped next generation EPRs (European Pressurised Reactors) in Finland, France and China. The Finnish and French reactors are years behind schedule and billions of euros over budget. Meanwhile, the two EPRs being built in China are suffering the same construction defects and safety concerns that have made the European EPRs such a joke.

As noted by Citigroup, the smart money doesn’t see a future for nuclear power. AREVA’s future isn’t entirely bleak, if it makes some strategic businesses changes. The company has a renewables arm that specialises in solar and wind energy, biomass, and hydrogen power technologies. By ditching the failing nuclear side of its business and fully devoting its resources to renewables, the company could yet salvage its reputation and its profits.

Do not read too much into loss of 1.6 billion E loss for giant like AREVA. Nuclear may take a bit pause, regaining the public confidence, but it is he...

Do not read too much into loss of 1.6 billion E loss for giant like AREVA. Nuclear may take a bit pause, regaining the public confidence, but it is here to stay. The EU report shows the significant role of nuclear power in all scenarios of way forward to decarbonize. Comparing the so called coming down of costs of renewables is a welcome indication, but the energy is consumed in kwh or units and not in MW. Nuclear continues and is likely to continue to be a low cost, stable and safe mode of energy generation for decades to come. Germany, Switzerland and Italy were not considering significant nuclear capacity addition, with their 8000 Kwh per capita consumption prior to March 11 accident in Japan. Other countries have limited energy options and are considering nuclear in a big way.

Could it be that PV solar isn't so competitive after all, in spite of subsidies per kWh that dwarf anything nuclear, unless your PV panel factory is allowed to pollute the air, land and rivers limitlessly?
"China: Villagers protest at Zhejiang solar panel plant"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-14963354

Or could it be that the "savings" mandated in Kyoto, which Canada (officially) and Japan (unofficially*) just quit largely amounted to shifting emissions to other countries, which don't seem to care so much, given the huge available amounts of coal, shale gas and tar sands?

*Or could it be that shutting down nuclear plants hasn't such a "negligible" effect on CO2 emissions after all?

Had you invested in Areva stock about 5yrs ago you would have lost 1/2 to 2/3 of your capital (http://www.reuters.com/finance/stocks/chart?symbol=AREV...

Had you invested in Areva stock about 5yrs ago you would have lost 1/2 to 2/3 of your capital (http://www.reuters.com/finance/stocks/chart?symbol=AREVA.PA).
Still better than if you had invested in Tepco though! (http://www.reuters.com/finance/stocks/chart?symbol=9501.T)

@itisme: Areva is indeed one of the three contenders. But the tender is delayed, and Areva is clearly fighting an uphill battle. My inside sources in ...

@itisme: Areva is indeed one of the three contenders. But the tender is delayed, and Areva is clearly fighting an uphill battle. My inside sources in the Czech Republic once reacted to me with: "You talk about Areva - who is still interested in Areva?"...

@sudhinder: The EU Roadmap 2050 shows that renewables can do the job. In its most ambitious scenario (from clean energy point of view), nuclear disappears in 2050 as marginal. More important is that the costs between the scenarios do not run apart that much - and that is interesting, because it counts on a learning effect for nuclear that we have never seen in history and underestimates the learning effect for renewables. The "low cost" nuclear that continues is life time extention of old reactors - already written off, liability costs well placed with states, waste costs still written in the stars - it is certainly not new reactors. The countries that are currently in the EU considering nuclear in a big way are the UK, Poland and the CEZ Republic - in all three the ambitious programmes are slowly grinding to a halt... exactly because they do have other energy options - like every country in the world - in the form of energy efficiency and a whole spectrum of renewable energy sources: http://www.energyblueprint.info

@zamm: There is indeed consolidation taking place in the PV market, mainly because of very successful new entrants in Asia and incredibly insecure energy support policies in key-countries like the UK. These issues are very different than "PV is not competitive". The pollution issue you refer to was abmissal, but rather a symptom of sloppy dealing with toxic substances in general in China than of the PV industry being polluting. This pollution was unnecessary without threatening the growth of the industry. Indeed, some countries don't care (the Canadian government being a right example) and favour coal, tar sands and do not see there is no reason to go into shale-gas at all. The case for a clean energy [r]evolution is stronger than ever, but, of course, will have to be made against the tide of trolls who rather close their eyes for the potential in favour for either fast profits or old technologies...

Regardless of whichever side one is on in the argument for or against Nuclear Power I would wish to emphasise that 8% of the world's energy is pro...

Regardless of whichever side one is on in the argument for or against Nuclear Power I would wish to emphasise that 8% of the world's energy is provided by Nuclear Energy. As bad as that might be in one sense it is remarkable that no analyst within the Green's or the non-Greens have considered in this article how this 8% gap would have been provided for over the last 40 years as it is a compound value.

As it is arguably feasible we have past world Peak Oil as early as 2003, but of course, like a rear-view mirror we will not be absolutely aware of such facts until we are looking backwards. So some intelligent commentary from the authors or a well researched fellow would be appreciated by me and I suspect a few other readers.

So, are you against nuclear power or against how businesses are run? You are again scrabbling around for reasons to show your hatred of the low risk nuclear industry, by offering weak excuses on a par with those of the Dr No article. I would respect Greenpeace a lot more if they could form coherent arguments. The fact is, you can't get away from the fact that nuclear power is incredibly low risk. The nuclear/radiological consequences of Fukushima are minimal despite the earthquake being massivley beyond the design basis for the power plant.